Every year about this time, the warmer weather gives every manner of fast-growing weed the opportunity to appear out of nowhere and begin consuming people's lawns. Deny it an environment in which it can thrive, by spreading a grass fertilizer and weed killer mix from your home and garden store, and it somehow finds its way to your neighbor's grass.

The same is true about international activists and representatives of various countries' governments who periodically gather under the umbrella of the United Nations, intent on changing the world. Deluded with an exaggerated sense of self-importance and obsessed with controlling the planet and everyone who inhabits it, this arrogant gaggle periodically checks in to five star hotels in the West's most cosmopolitan cities--with left-wing foundations or the taxpayers of first-world countries picking up the tab--to attend conferences during which they discuss curtailing national sovereignty and individual rights that offend their sensibilities.

As a fair review of their history would reveal, during the Cold War, "useful idiot" advocates for nuclear disarmament by the U.S., Britain and France (but not the USSR, of course) thrived within the U.N. and a host of "non-governmental organizations" (NGOs) that lobbied it, but found themselves crusaders without a crusade after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. In short order, they found a new raison d'etre in "land mines." But the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention of 1999, otherwise known as the Ottawa Treaty--since ratified by a majority of the world's countries--rendered the land mine issue largely passé.

What to do? What to do?

Of course, many of these perennial global agitators moved to small arms. By now, every gun owner concerned about the future of the right to keep and bear arms is aware that the international gun eradication movement has been working for more than a decade to achieve an U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that would cover not only tanks, helicopters, and other heavy weapons, but also rifles, handguns and shotguns. And if you've been following the issue closely, you know that the most aggressive among them have recently begun pushing for such a treaty to cover firearms ammunition. With sincere apologies to Man's Best Friend, they're like dogs that salivate uncontrollably in anticipation, as their bowls are filled with beef-smelling nuggets; they become more emboldened as the day on which they will begin writing the treaty nears.

And that day is nigh. As called for by a resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 2009, a conference will be held in July, in New York City, with the purpose of drafting the treaty's language. On a parallel track, the ridiculously-named Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects--"at the national, regional and global level," no less--under the auspices of the U.N.'s Office for Disarmament Affairs, just finished its most recent Preparatory Conference in New York.

During this PrepCon, as they call it, Mexico pretended as it often does that it is the country least responsible for its myriad chronic problems, calling for an international gun registry, presumably on the absurd belief that Mexican drug cartels will be first in line to provide corrupt Mexican police officers with the make, model, and serial number of the machineguns that the same police officers sold to them only a week before. IANSA (the International Action Network on Small Arms) complained that the Programme has given insufficient attention to civilian owned firearms and to ammunition in general.

NRA has tracked the Programme and the Arms Trade Treaty process since their inceptions, with NRA's Institute for Legislative Action even becoming an NGO to give it greater ability to monitor the progress and direction of these insidious efforts to use supranational authority to destroy our nationally-recognized and protected right. For those who are counting, the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes a person's "right" to "rest and leisure," "to enjoy the arts," and "to . . . cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality," but doesn't recognize the right of individuals to possess the means to defend themselves. For protection, the declaration says, people should rely instead upon "international order" and the declaration's proclamation that people "should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." And lest there be any confusion about who these folks believe should be in charge of deciding what constitutes a "right," the declaration includes the warning that "rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Last year, NRA EVP Wayne LaPierre told the U.N. that the treaty's advocates had made "endless demands for record keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails, databanks, new global agencies, and data centers," without "respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or . . . observing personal freedoms of any kind." Civilian firearms, LaPierre said, "must not be a part of any treaty. On this, there can be no compromise. American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom."

With the position of the Obama Administration on the subject unclear, U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kans.) has introduced legislation to prevent any arms treaty from infringing the right to keep and bear arms in this country. The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act, S. 2205, would prohibit the administration from using "the voice, vote, and influence of the United States, in connection with negotiations for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, to restrict in any way the rights of United States citizens under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or to otherwise regulate domestic manufacture, assembly, possession, use, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, or related items, includingÂ small arms, light weapons, or related materials."

Last year, Sen. Moran and 57 other U.S. senators signed a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reminding them that the Senate has final say on treaties, and stating their unequivocal opposition to any treaty that would affect civilian ownership of firearms, or challenge the authority of Congress to regulate firearms within the United States, or call for an international gun registry.

The purpose of the Programme's recent PrepCon was to lay the groundwork for a "Review Conference" scheduled to begin in August, by which time we should know what will have come out of the treaty drafting conference held the previous month. In the meantime, contact your U.S. Senators to urge them to sponsor and support Sen. Moran's bill.

Every time I see that picture I sigh in exasperation. It won't be blue helmeted UN troops disarming us it will be your local friendly police working with the federal gun gestapo.

To keep our firearms we will have to be mentally prepared to treat police as if they were enemy combatants (which of course by definition they will be) And anyone who foolishly thinks that the police won't enforce the most restrictive laws that get passed, just look at the history of the 20th century where gun bans and a lot worse were passed and implemented. Who implemented them? Why the governments' police forces of course. Ask the Russian peasants of Stalin's era, the German jews of the '30s and '40s, the educated cambodians of the '70s, the chinese middle class of the '50s and '60s about it. Oh wait you CAN'T ask them they were murdered by the police of their respective governments.

Unless anyone is stupid enough to say "It can't happen here." denying human nature is the same world wide, this is what we have to look forward to.

9
posted on 03/30/2012 11:11:36 AM PDT
by from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy)

NRA supported Harry Reid. Im sure he will help kill this treaty if it hits the Senate./

Since the rats took over the Congress in 2006, what gun grabbing bills moved through Congress besides the one about those deemed a threat to themselves or others, genuine head cases? I'm content with the NRA being a single issue organization backing incumbents when they an equal NRA rating compared to their challenger. Some RINOs have been awful regarding the Second Amendment.

I understand your point. But if we support a dem who is pro gun,,, and this pro gun dem then falls into line behind Obama, Pelosi, and Reid,, what did we get for our money?

No back bencher Congressman will be able to exert power over a Pelosi. NRA should not support the individual if they also belong to an organization that has a -proven- track record of dedication to eradicating the 2nd amendment. (ie,, the democrat party)

12
posted on 03/30/2012 11:23:01 AM PDT
by DesertRhino
(I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for officeoffI)

The democrat party has not had success in their agenda,, but they are working as hard as they can within political reality. I am not aware of ANY democrat who has saved us from gun control because we supported them.
The democrat party gave us Fast and Furious. The Democrat party is pushing this Global arms treaty. The democrat party made efforts to brutalize us after the Giffords/Arizona shooting. Large numbers of vets get a diagnosis of PTSD if they saw any combat. The Democrat party directed the VA to include these vets as brady check fails.
The democrat party is trying to end gun shows. The democrat party is working to close vast areas of federal lands to guns.
A blind man can see that the dem party is fully dedicated to ultimately disarming America. Not all repubs deserve support, but anyone who is a dem is on a team that deserves to be shunned. If they want cash,, the NRA should advise them to swap parties with generous offers of cash.

14
posted on 03/30/2012 11:33:29 AM PDT
by DesertRhino
(I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for officeoffI)

Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

Kindly note the second-to-last word of the quotation: "present." Obama could negotiate a treaty secretly, then call a session of the Senate with only a half-dozen or so gun-grabbing Senators in attendance and be home free.

This is only one of many reasons we won't be able to vote ourselves out of the mess we've voted ourselves into.

“Every time I see that picture I sigh in exasperation. It won’t be blue helmeted UN troops disarming us it will be your local friendly police working with the federal gun gestapo.

To keep our firearms we will have to be mentally prepared to treat police as if they were enemy combatants (which of course by definition they will be) And anyone who foolishly thinks that the police won’t enforce the most restrictive laws that get passed, just look at the history of the 20th century where gun bans and a lot worse were passed and implemented. Who implemented them? Why the governments’ police forces of course. Ask the Russian peasants of Stalin’s era, the German jews of the ‘30s and ‘40s, the educated cambodians of the ‘70s, the chinese middle class of the ‘50s and ‘60s about it. Oh wait you CAN’T ask them they were murdered by the police of their respective governments.

Unless anyone is stupid enough to say “It can’t happen here.” denying human nature is the same world wide, this is what we have to look forward to.”

-You may have a point, unless all those law enforcement and military on an individual basis happen to remember that oath they took. They will then have a very important decision to make.

When Holder said he wanted to renew the assault weapon ban in 2009, Pelosi and Reid said in effect to pound sand. Hence they proceded with Fast & Furious to phony up the stats. They know the Second Amendment is a losing issue for rats.

We know what’s the far left’s true agenda is since Obama became President, but the rats had to nominate so called moderates to take over Congress in 2006 and expand their majority in 2008. They had to run candidates who swore allegiance to the Second Amendment or be prolife, e.g. Bob Casey for Senator in PA in 2006.

One bit about how our own domestic police (and perhaps military) would be employed to conduct this particular brand of opression... From my experience, some would do as ordered and some would not. Enough, as far as I can tell, to lead to a good bit of "loss of unit cohesion".

Kindly note the second-to-last word of the quotation: "present." Obama could negotiate a treaty secretly, then call a session of the Senate with only a half-dozen or so gun-grabbing Senators in attendance and be home free.

The last that I read, they still need 60 votes to end debate. Do you think McConnell et al. are that stupid that no pubbie will be in attendance to object to a voice vote and demand a roll call vote.

Kindly note the second-to-last word of the quotation: "present." Obama could negotiate a treaty secretly, then call a session of the Senate with only a half-dozen or so gun-grabbing Senators in attendance and be home free.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.